Article 32 cannot be used to demand a chosen investigation agency or bypass ordinary criminal remedies.

An accused has no right under Article 32 to choose the investigating agency or insist on investigation by a particular method, and a transfer prayer made directly by the accused or indirectly through next friends is ordinarily not maintainable. The Court therefore rejected the request for transfer to a special agency or for court-monitored investigation. It also held that requests for release from custody, forensic examination outside the State, and similar ancillary reliefs must be pursued before the competent jurisdictional court under ordinary criminal procedure, not in Article 32 proceedings. The petition was not entertained on merits for the requested investigative and custodial reliefs, leaving the accused free to seek remedies before the proper courts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused or their next friends could seek transfer of investigation to an independent agency or a court-monitored investigation under Article 32; (ii) whether the arrested persons could obtain release or ancillary investigative directions in the present proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the accused or their next friends could seek transfer of investigation to an independent agency or a court-monitored investigation under Article 32.

Analysis: The majority held that an accused has no right to choose the investigating agency or to demand investigation in a particular manner. A prayer for transfer of investigation, made either directly by an accused or indirectly through strangers in the guise of public interest litigation, cannot ordinarily be entertained. The Court further held that the petitioners, being next friends, could not maintain the same relief once the concerned accused themselves had entered the proceedings, and that the proper course for the accused was to pursue remedies before the jurisdictional courts.

Conclusion: The prayer for transfer of investigation to a special agency or for court-monitored investigation was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrested persons could obtain release or ancillary investigative directions in the present proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that requests for release from custody, for forensic examination outside the State, and similar reliefs were matters to be agitated before the competent jurisdictional court in accordance with law. The proceedings under Article 32 were not treated as a substitute for the ordinary remedies available under criminal procedure during an ongoing investigation.

Conclusion: The Court declined to grant the requested release and ancillary reliefs in this petition.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits for the requested investigative and custodial reliefs, and the concerned accused were left free to pursue remedies available before the competent courts.

---